The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the maxim of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence and the interpretation of insurance policy provisions regarding coverage for pillion riders.

G.R.Majithia, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated January 28, 1984, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala.

2. Respondent No. 1 and her two sons filed an application under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , against the appellants and respondent No. 3. The deceased, husband of Santosh Kumari and the father of the two minor sons, was working as a salesman in the Sadhaura Marketing Co-operative-cum-Processing Society Limited, Sadhaura. Appellant No. 1 was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the petition. He is working as a sub-inspector attached to the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Naraingarh. On the date of filing of the application, he was posted at Sha-, zadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Both Sadhaura and Shazadpur fall in Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, while villages Bhogpur and Bas-satianwala fall in Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. On April 2, 1981, after the close of the office, appellant No. 1 happened to meet the deceased in Sadhaura and offered him a lift on his motor cycle since as he was going to his village, Bassatianwala, he could drop him at village Bhogpur on his way. The deceased used to go to village Bhogpur on his own cycle. At about 8.30/9.00 p.m. , appellant No. 1 was seen driving his motor cycle in a reckless and negligent manner by Gurdial Singh, son of Shri Ram Singh, and Ramji Lal son of Shri Dilla Ram, residents of village Bhogpur, who were sitting on the road side tea stall near Vishal Cinema, Sadhaura, on Sadhaura-Barara Road. They saw the deceased sitting on the pillion of the above said motor cycle. Soon thereafter, some unknown and unrecognisable person informed the persons present at the tea stall that an accident to a motor cycle had taken place just then. Both the above mentioned persons at once started towards the informed site of the accident and found Gurmukh Singh, deceased, lying on the right side of the pucca road in a pool of blood and in unconscious state. The motor cycle and the driver, namely, appellant No. 1, were nowhere in sight. By chance a van happened to pass that way. The deceased was at once removed to the Primary Health Centre, Sadhaura. Before any medical aid could be given, the injured breathed his last. Gurdial Singh lodged the first information report with police station, Sadhaura, on April 2, 1981.

3. Besides earning his salary, the deceased used to attend to his agricultural land measuring four acres and his income from this source was approximately Rs. 1,000 per month. The deceased was hardly spending a sum of Rs. 100-Rs. 150 per month on himself and the balance amount he used to contribute towards the maintenance of his family. The deceased was enjoying very good health and was in the prime of his life. The span of life in the family of the deceased was normally within the range of 70-75 years. Thus, the claimants claimed Rs. 1,00.000 as compensation.

4. The appellants filed a joint written statement, inter alia, pleading that the deceased met appellant No. 1 when he was going on his motor cycle and requested him that he had urgent work in his village. In view of this urgency, appellant No. 1 allowed the deceased to occupy the pillion seat of the motor cycle. Appellant No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle. The exact defence taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is contained in para No. 24 of the written statement which reads as under :

"That para No. 24 of the claim petition is wrong and is denied. The averments made in this para of the claim petition are false and wrong. It is absolutely wrong to say that respondent No. 1 himself asked the deceased to accompany him on the motor cycle. As a matter of fact, as respondent No. 1 was coming on the motor cycle, the deceased requested him saying that he had got some urgent piece of work and that he had to go immediately and he was not likely to have any other conveyance and that if he was late, he would suffer irreparable loss and on the pestering